On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Damien Morton wrote:
> I had a horrible thought.
> p2p seems to me to require the ability to accept incoming connections.
> Television was controlled by restricting the ability to broadcast.
> Could p2p be controlled by licensing the ability to accept incoming
*ding ding ding*
_THIS_ is the battle being fought here. P2P isn't new/hard/exciting, P2P is
the name for client-server post-NAT/firewall. P2P is a battle for that
incoming connection, the CHOICE to accept incoming connections.
That's it, all of it, the whole thing, end of story, period. QED.
Now if anyone was willing to actually admit that, instead of pitching it as
some new/hard/exciting thing, we could deal with the real issue and get on
with it already.
Hint: enough people demand (and pay for) static IP's that we run out,
forcing the IPv6 issue, then we have enough addresses, and having a static
IP just becomes normal, forcing costs down, then client+server just becomes
the universal norm again. Opps, did I mention paying, well that plan will
never work will it, odds are we'll just build more layers of NAT until the
internet is completely useless.
> What if these policies were mandated by the governement.
They are sure trying their best.
- Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:13:27 PDT